I was hoping you guys could post you experiences with having an oil cooled turbo vs having both. If you weren't water cooled did you have an Oil cooler? Did you have any oil temp problems? If you were water cooled did you have any overheating problems? Anyone actually noticed a difference when adding an oil cooler or adding the water lines? How about when the car was tracked/driven hard? I'm running an oil cooler for sure, but I'm trying to decide if I want to try and get away without watercooling it. Then again the more heat you can pull out of that turbo the better. I also really like how much cleaner the engine bay looks without them. They always seem to leak and cause overheating problems anyways.

On a side note. How many of you are running accusump / oil accumulators?

 

I have a oil only turbo, stock oil system. Driving very hard on hot days, or idleing long, I see 220 degrees F max. Usually when fully warmed up, im around 200 degrees. (oil temp)

Im sure the track would be a much different story.

 

I run oil cooled only, but only because I don't hook up the coolant to the turbo. You don't have to have water cooling, it won't make things much cooler, its more for DD cars that get turned on and off constantly.

FWIW, I don't know a single person on this board running the accusump or an oil accumulator. I saw one accumulator sold here but that was it.

If it's a substantial difference in cost for water cooling don't bother.

 

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a bad idea to run an oil & water cooled turbo with only the oil hooked up. Isn't the oil flow restricted more on an oil&water cooled turbo because the water does a lot of the cooling?

When my BEGi kit came it included the wrong fittings for the coolant lines so I ran the car with oil only for a few days. I tried my best not to beat on it at the advice of Tim, but you know how that goes. I don't have an oil temp gauge so I can't say if those temps changed but I swear it seemed like that turbo heated up like a mother ****** immediately before the coolant lines were connected. I did too many changes at once (added water lines, intercooler) to know for sure if it affected my air temps.

 

The turbo that came on my car was run without coolant hooked up for like 3 years I think.
If you can get fittings easily, running coolant has it's benefits i'm sure. I just never did it on the old setup.

 

IMHO If it wont cost an arm and leg and not too hard to hook up, I would DEFINITELY run water and oil cooling on a turbo. The cooling efficiency might not be astronomically better, but it IS better for sure. That and the benefit of car being able to cool the turbo faster after a spirited drive, alowing you to turn it off faster. just my .02

 

i've had 5 NA-T cars, never used the water lines, all daily driven - never had a coking problem

 

noone said there would be a problem, just that its better to use it if its not too much trouble to hook it up.

 

Has anyone ever had overheating issues after adding them and not upgrading the radiator? What about the cars with the big intercoolers? Anyone running gutted thermostats?

 

every road track car I've seen with a turbo has watercooling, as far back as the old turbo toyota turbo LM car. I don't see how its a bad idea.


Tons of people have overheating issues regardless of turbo cooling method.

 

The heat has to go somewhere, if water cooled then it leaves by the radiator, if oil cooled then into the engine which is cooled by the radiator.

If the car is going to overheat it will do it with or without running the waterlines. Unless of course you use an oil cooler

 

Garrett ball bearing turbos should be run with a .035" oil restrictor. It would be dumb to not run the coolant lines.

 

I DD mine, and without the water cooling (went a couple of days because the hose burnt and never had the time to fix it) it would get way hotter. I saw drastic changes not only in startup up, but in temperature variances on my SCII.

I never understood people who ran non-water cooled on turbos that accept it. Hell not only is it so easy to convert a miata to utilize the water lines, but it is so cheap too (if you go with just two nipples, hose clamps, and 5/16 "IIRC" lines.)

 

I don't water-cool mine because less parts = less parts that might fail.

If I had an expensive BB turbo, I would water-cool it just in case. But like I said, I've probably put 200k+ miles on NA-T cars and never had a problem - so, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

I didn't water cool my 16g.

 

I ran the 2871 w/o water lines for awhile... didn't really have issues....went to water cooling when my coolant system was all setup. I did it, but I wouldnt recommend it, especially for track days.

 

Sorry I don't understand. You wouldn't recommend running it without the water lines; is that what you're saying? If so, what differences did you notice when you put in the water lines?

Thanks

 

referring back to his previous statement of running without water lines....

 

fwiw, srt4's only have oil lines from the factory and they produce more power in stock form than 80% of the cars on here.

 

That really means nothing. ****, they also weld their turbo to the manifold. Since they make more power then 80% of the cars on here I better get welding.